Venue: Bourges/Viersen Rooms - Town Hall
Contact: Philippa Turvey Senior Democratic Services Officer
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Martin. Councillor Shabbir was in attendance as substitute.
Declarations of Interest
At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.
Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.
No declarations of interest were received.
Members' Declaration of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor
No Member declarations of intention to make representations as Ward Councillor were received.
The minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2015 were approved as a correct record.
Development Control and Enforcement Matters
The planning application was for the part demolition, alteration and extension of Queensgate Shopping Centre, Westgate, including change of use and the erection of a roof top extension to provide for uses within A1, A3-A5 (shops, restaurants and cages, drinking establishments and hot food take-away), D2 (assembly and leisure) and other associated works.
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and briefing update.
Councillor Khan and Councillor Jamil, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· Ward Councillors were disappointed that the applicants for the Queensgate Shopping Centre and the North Westgate Development Area had not worked together to reach a compromise.
· The matter had been discussed at length and while Councillors did not wish to object to the application, they felt it was necessary to do so.
· Realistically, it was considered that if the Queensgate application were to be granted that the North Westgate application would not be able to secure the financial investment to proceed.
· Ward Councillors felt that the North Westgate development needed to be given a chance. It was considered that Queensgate would be able to thrive without this application, whereas North Westgate would not.
· It was suggested that the applicants redesign their proposals without the cinema element. It was believed that such an application would receive support of local Councillors.
· Ward Councillors discussed the potential loss of city centre residential development that may occur if the Queensgate application was approved.
Stewart Jackson, MP, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· Mr Jackson advised the Committee that any decision made should be done so on policy grounds.
· The provision of cinemas within this application and the North Westgate application was considered to be salient. The viability of the North Westgate development hinged on the cinema, it was claimed.
· It was suggested that the Queensgate applicants were land banking sites within the North Westgate development area in order to protect Queensgate shopping centre.
· If this application was not approved the applicants could revisit the proposals and return with an alternative scheme.
· Mr Jackson referred to Council policy, which he believed could reasonably be used as grounds to refuse the application.
· Though, practically, two cinemas in the city were feasible, only one would be viable. There would, it was suggested, be an impact on the city’s wider strategic prospects.
Hereward Phillpot QC, Francis Taylor Building, David Shaw, David Shaw Planning, and David Turnock, Peterborough Civic Society, addressed the Committee in objection to the recommendation and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· Mr Turnock highlighted several areas of concern, including the height of the proposal. It was suggested that this would have a high level impact on the visual amenity ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
The outline planning application was for a mixed use scheme at North Westgate Development Area, Westgate, to include a cinema (D2), restaurants and cafes (A3), retail units (A1, A2), a food hall (A1, A3, A4, A5), office space (B1a), a hotel (C1), community and health care facilities (D1), residential (C3), together with associated parking, vehicular access, servicing arrangements, public realm works and landscaping. The demolition of all buildings, excluding Westgate Church, the Brewery Tap, 16-18 (in part), 30-36 Lincoln Road and Lincoln Court.
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and briefing update.
Councillor Jamil, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· Councillor Jamil endorsed the officer recommendation.
· It was believed that the proposals outlined represented a magnificent, mixed use development scheme.
· The additional pedestrian areas proposed and cycle routes around the site would be an excellent addition to the Peterborough area.
Richard Astle, Athene Communications, David Shaw, David Shaw Planning, and David Turnock, Peterborough Civic Society, addressed the Committee in support of the recommendation and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The proposal would regenerate a difficult area of the city and introduce new areas of public realm.
· Aspects of the development would include a food hall, house community groups, environmental features, offices and apartments.
· The development would create jobs and income for the Council.
· The proposals were policy compliant and deliverable.
· There was already commercial interest in the site and a cinema provider was involved.
· It was noted that without the inclusion of the cinema, the proposal would not proceed any further and development would have to wait.
· David Turnock advised that the proposed conditions were sufficient to address any previous concerns the Civic Society had.
The Committee discussed the application and were impressed with the proposals presented to them. It was considered that the applicant should focus their attention on the parts of the proposal site that were not within their ownership. The Committee believed there were a number of aspects to the proposals which would ensure the site was viable, and advised that the Council would work with the applicant to help the development come to fruition.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Reasons for the decision
Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:
· The principle of the mixed used retail, housing, office, leisure etc. uses were considered to be acceptable on this city centre site. This was in ... view the full minutes text for item 7.